 Good afternoon, I'm Lieutenant Junior Grade Luke Beanstock, the Public Affairs Officer for the Department of the Navy's Fiscal Year 2025 Presidential Budget Request. The Honorable Eric Raven, Under Secretary of the Navy, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Budget of the Navy for Budget, Rior Admiral Ben Reynolds, will brief the Department of the Navy's submission for FY25. Following the overview, they will take questions as time permits. It should focus specifically on the Department of the Navy's FY25 Budget Request. Mr. Under Secretary. Thank you very much, and good afternoon. I'm grateful to be here with Rior Admiral Reynolds to brief the Department of the Navy's FY25 President's Budget Request. This budget is focused on delivering resources to ensure America's maritime forces, our Navy and Marine Corps team, are ready, resilient, flexible, and for-deployed to do our nation's tasking, whether that's supporting naval diplomacy, crisis response, building partnerships, or protecting the world's global economy which floats on seawater. We need to compete and be able to win during this time of great power competition. Next slide. PB25 is a strategy-driven budget that is nested under our national security strategy and our national defense strategy. This budget builds upon the tenets of our national defense, which are integrated deterrence, campaigning, and building enduring advantages. Aligned with Secretary Austin's three priorities as seen here, our request demonstrates the Department's commitment to providing a ready, modernized, and capable naval force, a force that continues to be the nation's primary instrument of sea power and maritime statecraft now and into the future. Secretary Del Toro's strategic guidance solidifies that we are one Navy and Marine Corps team, and it identifies three enduring priorities, strengthening maritime dominance, building a culture of warfighting excellence, and enhancing strategic partnerships. The budget also supports the CNO's America's Warfighting Navy and the Commandant of the Marine Corps' force design. The PB25 request is reflective of what allows us to build, modernize, and maintain the right makes of capabilities to defend against great power competition among the other threats, while also investing in our future. Next slide. PB25 prioritizes our people, readiness, and it invests in our industrial base to build and sustain our fleet. The Department continues to make significant strides across our three enduring priorities established by the Secretary of the Navy, which you can see labeled here. Just a few of the examples in work of each one of these areas. Under strengthening maritime dominance, we invest in nuclear deterrence and maintaining 31 amphibious ships as the law directs. In building a culture of warfighting excellence, we make investments to improve quality of life and quality of service. And in enhancing strategic partnerships, we make major investments in building capacities for submarines, ships, and ship maintenance. These three priorities that we as a Department are all supporting, each of these align with the National Defense Strategy. Next slide. While we're gathered here today, our sailors and Marines are currently deployed around the globe to actively deter and respond to a wide set of challenges posed by nations and non-nation state actors alike. As Secretary Del Toro and other defense leaders have made clear, the challenges and threats we face range from the Russo-Ukrainian war down in its second year, the continued aggression across the Indo-Pacific instigated by the People's Republic of China, as well as the malign influence throughout the Middle East stemming from the Islamic Republic of Iran and their regional proxies. Displayed on this slide are just a few snapshots of some of our ongoing efforts in support of regional security and stability highlighted by the picture at the center of the USS Carney defending against aggression in the Red Sea. Next slide. We are and will continue to be where it matters, when it matters. Comprised of nearly 75,000 deployed Navy and Marine Corps personnel across the globe, over a third of our battle force ships are currently deployed and one-fifth are underway. Alongside our international allies and partners, our sailors and Marines help to uphold international norms, keep sea lanes open, and provide access to free and open oceans. And now I'd like to turn it over to Admiral Reynolds to discuss some of the details within the FY25 request. Thank you, Secretary Raven. Next slide, please. Transitioning to the fiscal slides, the FY25 President's budget request is $257.6 billion. This is a 0.7 percent increase above our FY24 budget request. This is in compliance with the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which caps defense spending. This budget depends on enacting the PB24, absent enactment, a full-year continuing resolution would be unprecedented, and would drive a $12.5 billion shortfall and cause profound and lasting damage to our forces. You'll see our restrictions in conjunction with sequestration would expand that shortfall to $29 billion. On the top left, you'll see a graph showing our department of the Navy top line. Under this capped budget, we make hard choices. We prioritize our readiness to deploy our fleet, our people, and our ability to respond in this decade of concern while taking risk in future capabilities. In the chart on the upper right, I will highlight changes in the appropriation groups. Investment is mostly flat with investments in the industrial base, undersea capabilities, and Marine Corps force design. Investments in manpower increase slightly in order to maintain strength levels and support our sailors and marines with the 4.5 percent pay increase and additional compensation. There is a decrease in R&D, an area we take risks to adequately fund other priorities. The construction decrease is compared to PB24, representing a return to typical historical levels following significant investments in PB24. It's about a 20 percent decrease from our FY24 milk on enactment. And then a 3.5 percent increase in operations and maintenance supports our commitment to keep ready players on the field and a postured expeditionary force capable of meeting global challenges. Next slide. With that backdrop, I'll brief a few slides starting with investments in our industrial base and shipbuilding, followed by other procurement accounts and our investments in the future fight. I will then discuss readiness and investments in our shore facilities, followed by our people, and then close with how we are enhancing our strategic partnerships. Our department is committed to pulling every available lever to expedite the necessary ships, aircraft, and weapons to our warfighters, both by partnering with industry to deliver new platforms and improving our ability to maintain our existing platforms. Starting on the top left of the slide, submarine industrial base or SIB investments are necessary to meet a generational increase in demand driven by recapitalizing the most survivable leg of the nuclear triad, the Columbia, on-time delivery of Virginia submarines, maintenance of in-service submarines, and national commitments made under the AUKUS agreement. This is a nationwide effort. Building and sustaining our submarines requires more than 15,000 companies across all 50 states. With an investment of $3.9 billion in FY25 and an $11.1 billion across the FITUP for the submarine industrial base and with a $3.3 billion FY24 supplemental request, the Navy expects to achieve Virginia-class submarine construction performance of two per year by FY28. In addition to SIB, the Navy will continue initiatives in major surface shipbuilding programs as a mechanism to incentivize investment in the needed facilities of our U.S. shipbuilders. Moving to the top right, we also partner with industry and our weapons procurement. PB25 continues investments with $227 million to expand capacity in Trident II, long range anti-ship missiles, standard missiles, and Mark-48 torpedoes. This builds on our FY23 efforts as well as pending PB24 investments. On the lower portion of the slide, I will further highlight fortifying the foundation through the Shipyard Infrastructure Optimization Program or SIOP. The Navy's four public shipyards are essential elements of our national defense. The average age of the naval shipyard facilities in related infrastructure is 61 years, while the average dry dock age is 107 years, and so that's pre-World War I. In FY25, we invest $2.8 billion in mil-con and restoration at our shipyards to maximize our players on the field today and over the next few decades. We already see results from previous year's SIOP investments such as the completed renovation of dry dock four at Norfolk Naval Shipyard and the contract award for dry dock three replacement at Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard. Finally, on the lower right, we invest $407 million in our aviation depots to get more aircraft back to the fleet. Next slide. The Navy procures six battle force ships in FY25, additionally the budget fully funds the nation's top defense acquisition priority, Columbia-class nuclear ballistic missile submarine. $9.6 billion or one-third of our new construction budget will provide the second of two years of incremental funding for the second Columbia-class submarine, the U.S. and Wisconsin, as well as advanced procurement for future ships of the class. For attack submarines, PB-25 requests $7.3 billion for Virginia-class. This will procure the first Virginia Block 6 submarine and will initiate a nine-ship planned multi-year procurement beginning in FY25. The request also includes advanced procurement for two FY26 and two FY27 Virginia-class ships and material for eight future Virginia-class submarines executed as part of the FY25 multi-year contract. The budget requests $1.6 billion for the fourth San Antonio-class LPD. The department is committed to the 31 amphibious ship requirement with two additional LPDs programmed in the FIDDOT. Other ships include the LEED medium landing ship and then seven across the FIDDOT. Two Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, including completion funds for three FY23 and two FY24 ships, and one Constellation-class guided missile frigate. We request $1.9 billion to continue incremental funding for CVNs 80 and 81, and then an additional $1.1 billion to fund the USS Harry S. Truman Refueling and Complex Overhaul. You'll note that the Navy currently has 88 ships on contract with 66 under construction procured in previous years. As I mentioned on the previous slide, we will pull every lever to get these ships to our warfighters. The budget includes a divestment of 10 ships before their end of service life. This is a return on investment decision, a whole by whole assessment based on the material condition, life remaining, cost and time to upgrade, and net warfighting value. We will continue to work closely with Congress for these divestments. Next slide. In aviation, the Department's request of $16.2 billion in PB-25 procures 75 aircraft plus modernization, spares, and support equipment. Our aviation investments include 26 F-35 lightning bees and seas, 27 multi-engine trainer systems, and 19 heavy-lift CH-53K king stallions. The budget continues our investment in unmanned platforms to improve ISR and close the kill chains. We completed Triton and Marine Corps MQ-9 procurement in FY-24. We fund new capabilities for these aircraft in this budget. MQ-25 is refazed to a better glide path. We are procuring 3 in FY-25 plus advanced procurement for long-lead time material for future aircraft. Next slide. PB-25 provides $6.6 billion for weapons procurement Navy. More than any other appropriation, our weapons procurement relies on enacting PB-24 to make progress in this critical area. Pending enactment of PB-24, we continue multi-year buys for four critical munitions while increasing line capacity. The standard missile 6 or SM-6 is the Fleet's air defense weapon carried on board Aegis cruisers and destroyers. We buy 125 missiles in FY-25 and invest $100 million for special tooling and equipment to increase production capacity to 300 per year by FY-28. Other weapons include 90 lorazums, that's 30 of the standard version, and 60 extended range, 102 naval strike missiles, 261 AMRAMs, 182 Jaggums, 79 Mark-48 heavyweight torpedoes to include funding to address throughput in future years. You'll notice we are not buying any conventional prompt strike missile in FY-25. The department continuously assesses program performance and determined that the best course of action in PB-25 is to refase missiles to future years to allow the program time to restore technical confidence via design reviews and additional testing. Next slide. $4.2 billion continues the Marine Corps commitment to force design. We procure 80 amphibious combat vehicles with improved lethality, with 30 millimeter and 7.62 millimeter weapons. FY-25 funding initiates long range fires, low rate initial production. This includes eight LRF launchers and carriers which will provide the initial equipment for the long range missile batteries in FY-27. Other Marine Corps procurement includes 123 javelin missiles, 674 joint light tactical vehicles, and 12 medium range intercept capability EMRIC systems. We pause Nemesis launcher and carrier production this year while maintaining equipment purchases to support the establishment of additional batteries. Next slide. The FY-25 research and development request reflects the department's focus on readiness as we take risk in some future capabilities. $25.7 billion invests in the warfighting naval force to provide our sailors and Marines with the most cutting edge systems, weapons, and platforms to win decisively in an increasingly complex environment. The Navy remains committed to the strategic deterrence mission funding the generational recapitalization of all sea-based portions of the triad. The department slows development of next generation platforms, refacing the FAXX program while investments in future submarine and large surface combatants remain flat across the fed up. Investments in information warfare and cybersecurity efforts ensure command, control, and communications in any environment. The department continues to focus on key enabling technologies for unmanned programs to maximize interoperability and capability. In aviation, when we continue investments in FY-25 for MQ-4 Trident and MQ-25, building on requested reprogrammings in FY-23 and FY-24 budget. The FY-25 Marine Corps R&D budget continues investment in modernization and innovation that support force design to include anti-ship missile systems, amphibious combat vehicles, and ground-based expeditionary radar systems. Next slide. In readiness, our Navy must be able to put the right mix of players on the field today with trained crews, ships, and aircraft ready to operate and with capable weapons systems and munitions. In a captier, PV-25 prioritizes readiness. Starting at the top left of the slide, ship operations funds the fuel, parts, and support necessary for the fleet to train and operate around the globe. Ship operations funding increases $600 million in PV-25 to pace battle force steaming days, fuel prices, and increases in cost for logistics force. Moving to the bottom left, the budget funds ship maintenance at $14.5 billion as the Navy continues to focus on maximizing the time our ships are available to fleet commanders. This covers private contracted availabilities, as well as the Navy's four public shipyards, regional maintenance centers, and intermediate maintenance facilities. On the right-hand side, the flying hour program funds the flight hours to enable carrier and expeditionary strike group power projection and dynamic employment. The FY-25 budget request provides 875,000 flying hours, providing operations, flight line maintenance, and training for active and reserve squadrons, and fleet air training program. The decrease from FY-24 represents a shift towards maintaining the high readiness levels built through investment and substantial process improvements in previous years. These hours will allow Navy and Marine Corps squadrons to train their crews and deploy ready for mission requirements. On the bottom right, the aircraft depot maintenance program paces the fleet flying hour program, funding repairs of aircraft, engines, and components to ensure mission-capable aircraft are available to all the warfighters. Next slide. The FY-25 budget prioritizes the Marine Corps' commitment to readiness for the nation's naval expeditionary force. Marine Corps' readiness funding increases to $4.5 billion and includes $39 million for continued buildup of three Marine littoral regiments, while maintaining the operational readiness of five traditional infantry regiments. Other specific investments include small unmanned aircraft, global combat support systems, modernization of tactical communication IT systems, and depot maintenance service life extensions for ground vehicles and integration of new radar systems. Next slide. PB-25 prioritizes critical shore investments to increase fleet readiness. Continuing investment in facilities is necessary to maintain our shore installations. This provides the foundation for everything we do. Ensure our fleet, maintain our readiness, and take care of our people and their families. Navy FSRM is funded at $4.7 billion in PB-25, an increase of 5.3 percent. Marine Corps FSRM has an increase of 7.5 percent. Moving to the right-hand side of the slide, the estimated FY-24 enacted Milcon budget is $5.8 billion, and the FY-25 budget request of $4.6 billion includes 20 projects in support of new platforms, shipyard improvements in Kitter remain in Norfolk, Virginia, safety, and environmental compliance. This request provides $872 million for INDOPECOM and UCOM posture construction to include $364 million for major construction supporting the relocation of U.S. Marines from Okinawa to Guam and Darwin, Australia, as well as $386 million for planning and design, including a child development center on Guam. Next slide. As I said earlier, this budget prioritizes our people. The budget includes a 4.5 percent pay raise for our service members followed by a 5.2 percent pay raise in 2024. For Navy personnel, PB-25 includes $41 billion for a force of 332,300 active sailors, remaining relatively flat from FY-24. The budget also provides $2.8 billion for 57,700 reservists aligned with fleet force structure changes. The Navy is laser-focused on recruiting shortfalls. We had $134 million for additional recruiting and retention bonuses, continued to invest in advertising at higher than usual rates across multiple media platforms. For the Marine Corps, the FY-25 budget request is based on what is realistically achievable in the current recruiting and retention environment. The request provides $15.9 billion for an active duty and strength of 172,300 Marines and $939 million for 32,500 reservists. The Marine Corps remains committed to talent management objectives that support the targeted maturation of small unit leaders and technically skilled personnel. Next slide. This year, the Department set a new course for quality of service, akin to the Secretary of Defense's taking care of people. This budget includes $1.4 billion of investments in quality of service initiatives. For our junior sailors, we will continue improving conditions for crews on ships under construction or long-term maintenance, investing in sustainment of birthing barges, increasing options for off-ship housing, and increasing access to quality food sources. Taking care of Marines is a fundamental warfighting function. The Marine Corps is also focused on barracks' modernization and sustainment. The Marine Corps is inspecting every barracks in our inventory, a key step in further investments needed to bring all barracks facilities to the necessary standard by 2030. To benefit all service members, this budget includes significant investments in unaccompanied housing, childcare centers, and childcare fee assistance and recreation programs. We remain committed to warfighter mental and physical wellness, with sustained investments of $353 million in sexual assault and prevention and response, and increased investments in mental health and suicide prevention, with a $52 million increase over PB24 levels. Next slide. The Department of the Navy continues to expand strategic collaboration with the Joint Force, Industry, Academia, and International Allies and Partners. The Generational Ocas Security Agreement between the United States, Australia, and the United Kingdom is changing the geo-strategic landscape and the Indo-Pacific. This agreement is a model for leveraging industry partnerships across our three nation's defense industrial bases. Military-to-military cooperation with our partners in every domain is an asymmetric advantage against our adversaries and is the heart of our national defense. Next slide. Enclosing our PB25 request represents the best possible mix of investments in readiness now and investments and capabilities for the future fight under a capped budget. The budget assumes and builds on an enacted PB24. This budget prioritizes our people and our readiness to deploy and operate today and respond in this decade of call to. We invest in our industrial base in order to get the ships and the aircraft and weapons to our sailors and marines. This is particularly true in support of our submarine and our weapons industrial base. The budget delivers the resources necessary to operate and build a lethal naval force to defend our nation and our way of life. Thank you. Under Secretary Raven and I, I would be happy to answer any questions. Yipi. Hi. Tara Popp with the Associated Press. Thank you for doing this. I was struck by the slide on the number of SM6s that you'll be buying. The numbers seem kind of small. Given the rate that you've been seeing activity in the Red Sea, how much risk are you taking with the ships, firing missiles, you know, sometimes on a daily basis to defend ships and transiting there? Can I take it? Thank you very much. The, for SM6s, let me just start with a reminder that we had significant investment in SM6s in our PB24 budget as well. And probably the most important thing that we can do is to enact PB24 and allow those investments to take hold because we have investments in our industrial base to increase capacity. You're right. We're investing to procure 125 missiles in 25 and look to ramp up with industry up to 300 towards the end of the fit-up. So investing and doing everything we can with industry to do that, to include looking at alternatives for rocket motors or anything we can do to increase that. A couple of other things on that on Red Sea, and you heard, I think, the Vice-Chairman talk earlier about our in-depth defense in depth. So we're doing everything we can within this, within this, within 24. We have some supplemental funding requested to help us improve our capacity in 24 and to accelerate that. And then we're looking at different weapons for defense in depth to protect our sailors and Marines out there in the Red Sea. I guess just to feed off of that, since this is a long-term operation, it seems at this point and you're having to continue to defend not only your own ships but commercial ships, how much risk are you taking with the burn rate you're seeing in the munitions you're firing? Let me take that. So in terms of ongoing operations around the world, this PB-25 budget really reflects the need to invest in readiness, people, and industrial base to set up the long-term success of our Navy and Marine Corps team. The impacts of overseas operations, whether that's munitions expended or the cost of ongoing operations in terms of fuel, additional maintenance and so forth, that's not built into the FY-25 budget. We'll have to work with Congress and other parties to make sure that those costs are reflected elsewhere. We'll go to the phone. Is Reuger's there? Play the call. You're known. Flimberg. I'm sorry, Virginia, class, already Congress and Courtney and a couple others are complaining about the cut of one. What's your argument to them in terms of why you did what you did in the Second Viva Courts of the Navy decision? And for you, the technical Tomahawk, the Tomahawk, there's been more use of the Tomahawk probably than SM-6 over there, and you've got 22 in the budget, but you've got refurbishing of like 365 or recertification. In English, does that mean transferring or updating black cores into black five Tomahawks? And that's how you're going to beef up your inventory? Let me tackle the submarine question first. So I see the FY25 budget as being very strong on the undersea. There are historic investments in the submarine industrial base. Last year we presented a program with $2.4 billion of investments in the submarine industrial base. That's up by more than $11 billion in this budget, and then in addition to that, another $3.3 billion that's pending before Congress right now in the form of a supplemental. This budget funds 9 out of 10 Virginia class that had been projected over the fight up. We removed one Virginia class out of concern for the industrial base ability to produce yet one more while in a capped environment making headroom for these historic investments in the submarine industrial base. But we're going about this in a strategic way because we're not simply taking a submarine out. We are also continuing investment in advanced procurement to make sure that the supplier industrial base is fully funded and able to expand to meet future submarine requirements moving forward. So in total, this FY25 budget really makes the necessary investments to set up for long term success on both the Virginia and Columbia class submarines. Tony, thank you for the question, Tomahawk, and I don't want to sound like a broken record on this, but again, with Tomahawk like with SM6, we do have that and we have some industrial capacity initiatives in our 24 budget, and I think that's the key to unlocking this. If you recall, just like Mark 48's a few years prior with Tomahawks, we reopened the line and we went from just recertifying the Tomahawks we have to building new. This budget reflects that, that we continue to recertify wherever we can. We continue to look for other areas that we can have more kits and buy more rocker propellant, and then we have a mix of all up rounds and recertification. The budget is fully funded to the capacity in 25 and then across the fit up to get to the capacity that we're looking for by the end of the fit up. What does recertify mean in English, taking a block 4 and making a block 5? That's right, so it depends, but every 15 years we have to just like you go through a ship modernization, we have to go through and just do basically a depot event for that Tomahawk. And so that could be anything to recert for upgrading, or it could be changing that upgrading and then making that a maritime strike Tomahawk. For example, we have MST, maritime strike Tomahawk in this budget, and some of those are kits to go on our current Tomahawks. Thank you. Defense news? Thanks, Megan. I'm with Defense News. A quick clarification to Tara's question, and then one of my own. On the Red Sea spending, you mentioned additional costs for ship maintenance, ship operations, aircraft maintenance operations as well. I wonder if there's a dollar amount associated with that gap that's not in FY25? Well, Megan, we do have $1.6 billion of supplemental funding that's over on the hill, I believe, passed by the Senate, and that includes the operations in the Red Sea, and that includes some additional funding about $150 million to basically recertify and refurbish SM-2s that we have today and work through other weapons systems. So $1.6 of supplemental, we have about $1.6 of supplemental requests for Ukraine that includes operations, and then, of course, our SIP supplemental. And then, so you mentioned the DDGX, SSNX, and FAXX being refazed and pushed back due to the budget caps. I wonder, the timing of those has been at issue in the past, just because there are three big bills that would come due, potentially, you know, back to back to back. And I wonder if there's a sense of the timing of those now given that refacing? Yeah, we look at that really carefully, and we continue to look at it across the fit-up. I think, Megan, that we did a good job here as we look across, one, the prioritization, right, prioritizing our readiness and our people today and our ability to fight. And then FAXX, we still remain committed to that, that goes down to about $400, $500 million and $25, but we ramp up across the fit-up. And as technology matures, we'll learn more and develop those weapons systems. An important piece to this, Megan, is not just focusing on those three weapons systems, but an immense amount of capability that we have, particularly in the Indo-Pacific. We get through our investments in things like project overmatch, our long-range kill chain, and the weapons that I talked about earlier. Hi, Sam, we're growing from U.S. and I news. Looking at some of the submarine industrial base spending that y'all are doing here, there's a lot of attention that One Hall in the Virginia is, what about Columbia? Are you doing everything that you can to keep that program on track? I think the last time we checked in with y'all, that margin was raise or fan. Are y'all able to keep up with that pace relative to this budget? So our investments in Columbia continue. It is our number one acquisition priority. And across the submarine industrial base, we're counting on a lot of the same, not only shipyards, but suppliers to support both programs. So this budget, again, has solid investments in the submarine industrial base, really taking it to another level. But in terms of performance, several weeks ago, the Secretary of the Navy directed a 45-day review of all shipbuilding programs, not just Virginia, but look across the portfolio to assess really where we are in terms of production of each one of those classes of ships. We're continuing that work and we'll have more on that in the coming weeks. Columbia is something that y'all have daily updates on. I mean, that is the number one acquisition priority has been for some time. Is it late now? Look, the stress across the submarine industrial base is clear, both from the supply base and at shipyards. We're watching that extremely closely on Columbia. And again, I think putting that in context of the 45-day review, which we expect to complete pretty soon, will provide really, I think, a good picture of where we are across all shipbuilding programs. That's perfect. Thank you. Admiral Reynolds, you mentioned the investments in PV-24, the 6.9 billion in munitions. Have any of those munitions been built yet, the refurbished Tomahawk CSM-6s, or are you waiting until PV-24 has passed before you can start building any of the munitions in PV-24? So we can continue with the FY-23 levels of funding that we had. But that's a significant difference. That's like 2 billion, maybe 1.9 billion dollars less than our 24 levels. And then the other big piece of this is that when we phase in these, when we really try to ramp up our weapon systems, we will add what we call the OQ and long lead time material to try to get the industry up to another level. And that requires the multi-year funding in 24, but it also requires authorization. So we need the budget before we can start those multi-year programs in 24. Well, just checking, have any of the SM-6s and SM-2s, from PV-24 they've been built yet? We continue to build, we continue to build rate at the capacity that we can. So yes, we're continuing to build, we continue to build missiles in SM-6s in 24 and refurbished missiles that we can. Do you know Britain's fence? Hi, sirs, Justin Katz. Two things on the carriers. Your budget is going to move CVN 82's procurement from 28 to 30. That industrial base has been pretty vocal about the pain. It believes it's going to be caused by that delay, particularly with the interval between the procurement of 82 and 281. So could you speak to what you're doing to mitigate that damage? And secondly, you said during your remarks that you believe you can get to two point, or two Virginias per year by FY28. Can you talk a little bit about the calculus there? Mr. McCord was up here two hours ago saying, you know, we're not going to buy a Virginia sub this year because the boats are delayed. Other than pumping more money into the industrial base, what's going to change between now and 28? Okay, for the carrier first, Justin, your question was on CVN 82 and capacity. Okay, good. So again, CVN, you're right, CVN 82 was a 28 ship, and now is a 30 ship. And but we have funding across the fit up for CVN 82 and 83 and then start AP and 27 for those ships to try to mitigate some of that and get the long lead time material that we need. Again, as you know, this industrial base is tight and the carriers are built in the same yards that our Colombias are built and that our Virginias are built and that we do our COHs. So working with everything we can do to unlock the capacity. And I think that the initiatives that we're doing plus the AP will do everything we can to get after that. On, on getting Virginia to that 2.0 cadence that we need, the turnaround is not going to come overnight, but the good news is that for several years we have been investing in the submarine industrial base to be able to improve performance across the program. That includes billions of dollars previously provided by Congress and we're seeing the signs that those investments are starting to make a difference in key areas. We've invested in hundreds of small businesses creating more than 1,000 jobs in the supply base that's helping to expand throughput and capacity for the supply base for the, for the Sib. We're starting to see that hiring is going better in a number of places that has been a limiting factor in previous submarine construction. And so it's not going to turn around overnight but we're starting to see the indications that the investments that we have made are starting to show a difference. The challenge is that with many shipbuilding programs including submarines, the cycles are so long it takes many years to build a submarine that it takes time for all of these, all of these foundational investments to produce the results that we need. But again, our estimate is that 2028 with these investments and with the acceleration that's still pending before Congress of that 3.3 billion dollars, we expect to be at the 2.0 cadence that we need. This is Nat. Hi, I'm Valerie Shelborn. I just want to follow up on Virginia. So I understand that the two boats here cadence is the goal for FY28, but many officials have said you need to get to 2.33 in order to sell to the Australians under AUKUS. So I'm just curious, AUKUS has been billed as one of the most important security partnerships in our generation. What are you telling the Australians about this decision to buy one per year and what it means for the partnership going forward? Well, it's one in one year and we have a plan to procure two in the out years. We're being very transparent with all our partners about where we are and the scale of investments that we're making in this budget that are pending before Congress. But to be clear, the investments made in this budget are those required to get to that 2.0 cadence that we need for U.S. needs. Thanks to the Australians and the support of Congress, there are additional investments that we expect to bring us up above that 2.0 delivery cadence to that 2.33 that we would need to produce the submarines to fulfill our AUKUS commitments. And we're having regular exchanges with the Australians on the timing and the shape of those investments. So it's an open dialogue. And a quick follow up on Columbia. A report just came out that the Navy's forecasting a one year delay on the delivery of the first boat. Can you speak to that? We were seeing stress across the industrial base. And again, I think putting this in the context of the Secretary's 45 day review will add additional depth and context to the challenges that we're seeing across the shipbuilding portfolio. And we expect to have that done fairly soon. Can I just say just one thing? I think Mallory, I think we should be, you know, positive and very, and I think excited about all of this opportunity in our industrial base and the money that we have in our supplemental funding, our PB-24 and then this 25. I mean, I think I've said before, heck, we were at building almost five fast attack submarines a year in the early 80s. I mean, we have, while we were having a generational change in our Columbia predecessor, the Ohio, I mean, I think we have a real opportunity to get our industrial base to a better place and to get these ships and aircraft and weapons to our war fighters out there in the fleet. Great. That's all we have time for today. Thank you all for coming. Thank you.